Druac a.k.a. HemetDude
> If there are any plans upcoming to picket Scientology related events or
> locations in and around the Inland Empire (Southern California:
> Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Gold Base in Hemet, etc.),
> please contact me as I would like to get my feet wet in this respect.
> Also, I would be willing to contribute some time in organizing or
> helping in any way that I might be able to.
Picketing Gold Base would instantly put you into the triple A evil SP
bracket, fair game for every nasty cult fanatic. Read up on what
happened to Keith Henson and still happens to Barb. Consider very
carefully whether you want to put yourself and more importantly your
family and friends through that kind of harassment.
If you want to picket, I'd suggest trying some of the lesser Missions
and Orgs in Southern California. There are plenty that have never been
picketed. One picket makes a BIG difference, to most cult staff critics
of the Scientology religion are just a rumour.
If you want help try posting on the Clambake Message Board. Many new SPs
read that but not ARS.
ARS Frequently Asked Questions
Please read before posting
"I'm for the separation of church and hate."
However, if there are others who are willing to do it, I would be
willing to contribute. I won't be intimidated by what has happened to
others, in fact that is something that makes me want to participate
more. The very fact that they have done this in the past is MORE reason
to expose them for it.
It would seem to me that this is the time to get involved and do what
we can to prevent them from harming others and continuing to take
advantage of others and expose them for what they are.
I believe in the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech in this
nation of ours, what I can't abide in is the false religions and cults
such as Scientology that purposely prey on the innocent and vulnerable.
I'm a firm believer that if you know the truth you should expose it.
I couldn't be comfortable just letting it happen now that I know the
However, it occurred to me that it is much less isolated than when they
first purchased that property, I wonder how miffed they are about the
explosion that has and is currently taking place out here in regards to
housing and population. :)
Thank you for your reply.
Actually, the kult owns most of the houses surrounding Gold Base.
> Actually, the kult owns most of the houses surrounding Gold Base.
Jeff does bring up a valid point in saying that picketing
'Gold' is like whistling in the wind. Nobody will see you;
which is one of the primary purposes of picketing at all.
*BUT* There is also a different purpose which does not require
that you be seen (except by the 'Church') which is 'Showing the
To a somewhat lesser extent, this is an element of *every*
picket. To demonstrate that the 'Church' *does* have people who
object to it, and that *despite* all their supernatural powerz
they can't prevent the public rejection of Scientology is always
Probably about 25% of the point to *any* picket.
With a picket at 'Gold' or 'Int Base' it's almost 100% of the
Just because most pickets are about 'informing the public' does
*not* mean that that is the only purpose to picketing.
As Barbz (and Keith Henson) can testify, I'm sure.
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
>Picketing gold base is sort of like picketing in a closet; hardly
>anybody will see you. Cars whiz by at 45 mph or more, and staff are
>isolated by vegetation and orders to stay away. There is no public
>foot traffic there. So you might keep the security dudes busy but
>that's about it.
I respectfully disagree with Jeff and cite blownforgood's description
of what happened when I picketed there in 2000. When they did that
lock down Mike Sutter got demoted for it, so I doubt anyone is going
to lock them up inside again. You will most likely have people seeing
you. If they do a lock down, that's even better because it is
In any case, the business of hiding from one or two guys with picket
signs hits even the cult members as a demonstration of who is at
> I assume your goal is to reach the public and Scientologists with
>your message. In that case, I recommend picketing in Hollywood.
The cars may whiz by, but there are lots of honks and thumbs up.
Picketing Int is one of place you get a lot of public support. And
there is no other place on the West Coast where your concern for what
goes on inside the razor wire reaches more scientologists.
DM and Mike Rinder well aware of the effects picketing there has on
the staff. The lawyers are still trying to get the illegal injunction
they got against me made "non dischargeable" in a bankruptcy court.
Suggested picket signs: "Where is Marty Rathbun" on one side and
"Where is Warren McShane" on the other. Along with www.xenu.net.
Another would be "Chuck Beatty says Hi."
I suspect any picket there isn't going to be long. Either they will
come out with copies of the illegal injunction or they will get the
sheriff to come out and tell you picketing is not allowed there for
anyone who is a minion of Keith Henson. (And they will claim everyone
Or if you want, you could go to the Sheriff first, tell them you
intend to picket and show them the court exceeded its authority in
issuing the injunction.
"The Dezotell, Hoden and Wagoner lawsuit was filed as a limited case
and never converted by petition to an unlimited case. The case was
tried before Barry A. Reimer, Commissioner of the Riverside County
Superior Court (in place of a judge) over the strenuous objections of
the defendant and his attorney. At summery judgment the court
commissioner granted a permanent injunction to the plaintiffs.
"It is impossible for a court of limited jurisdiction to issue a
permanent injunction. They simply lack the authority. (California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 580(b)(2).) "They may not grant a
If you get a copy of the injunction, leave. Go picket the corner of
State and Florida or go into LA and picket CC, big blue or the life
exhibit on Hollywood.
So, the picketers are in the closet picketers? Lol. Is anybody not gay
here? (Except me?)
> I respectfully disagree with Jeff and cite blownforgood's description
> of what happened when I picketed there in 2000. When they did that
> lock down Mike Sutter got demoted for it, so I doubt anyone is going
> to lock them up inside again. You will most likely have people seeing
> you. If they do a lock down, that's even better because it is
> profoundly demoralizing.
I don't think that Mike Sutter was demoted for keeping the security up.
He did right by making sure that anti-religious extremists can't plant
explosives in the orgs. He likely wasn't demoted at all and
blownforgood (has written former infiltrator and impostor all over him)
is making everything up. Nobody of you guys ever provided hard
evidence, it is all rumors, hype and defamation.
> Suggested picket signs: "Where is Marty Rathbun" on one side and
> "Where is Warren McShane" on the other. Along with www.xenu.net.
I think that anybody of you knows where Warren and Marty is. As far as
Warren is concerned, he doesn't seem far away from the orgs as the RTC
attorney recently spoke of his behalf. As far as Marty is concerned, it
is much more mysterious. But I think that you ALL know where he is. If
I am right, and he is wrongfully incarcerated in an official prison, he
can't show up. If you know this and smear his name in public, I predict
huge legal problems for you once he is free and vindicated.
I think, I am the only one who wants to find Marty. Nobody of you did
any effective steps to determine his whereabouts. Posting on ARS
doesn't result in finding him. Smearing his name on Wikipedia and other
websites also will not produce his whereabouts, same goes for any other
form of harassment and violation of privacy. Making money with his
face, violating Marty's privacy and right to his own image, on
T-Shirts, or otherwise, as terrorist friendly Andreas Heldal Lund does,
will most certainly have legal consequences down the road. I think
Andreas would not allow anybody to use his face on T-Shirts.
Making money, that is what Andreas is all about. Anybody wants T-Shirts
with the handsome looks of Marty, but nobody wants one with Andreas
slimy face, so he sells the T-Shirts with Marty's greater than life
image. It is so obvicious and such a violation of Marty's rights.
Once again, it will not produce Marty, and I am very convinced that
Andreas knows that Marty CAN'T come forward as wrongfully incarcerated
not by the orgs but - after being framed - wrongfully incarcerated in
an official prison. If you want to find Marty, search the official
prisons for an innocent man.
Barbara Schwarz (Looking for the original Mark [Marty] Rathbun. No
Wikipedia or better Wikipiggi is a destructive cult. Biased Wikipedia
writers/administators attack and defame me and then, they block me for
correcting lies and false character portrayal by anti-religious
extremists as pro Eugenics Tilman Hausherr and habitual offender Korey
Jerome Kruse ("Vivaldi") and their friends and making use of my first
amendment rights. Wikipedia violates my rights and can't take any
critic. They deleted my Wikipedia postings. Wikipedia is a defaming
anti-free speech cult, similar as STASI and the KGB. It is
anti-American and anti-constitutional. Even Congress is fed up with
them. Wikipedia is above the U.S. Constitution and laws.
I suggest people come with video/DVD recorders in position a couple
hundred yards away, filming and watching what happens.
The more picketers showing up with video/DVD recorders, the better.
I used the cheap video recorder/cameras, disposable type that are now
sold over the counter at pharmecy stores like Eckart, for $26.00, one
time use, records 20 minutes video with sound, and processing is 12
bucks and you get a DVD of whatever you filmed in your 20 minutes.
I recommend you have a couple smart innocent bystander witnesses
filming what happens to you.
And when you get your DVD once processed, you can download scenes onto
He asked for me by name. I said, "Who's askin?"
He said, "I'm asking. Are you Barbara Graham?"
I took a swift look at his nametag before answering 'yes.'
His name was 'Gay.'
I almost said, yes, I'm Barb, are you Gay?
But I didn't. I'm sure he knew it was coming, though. I showed him
printouts I carried of my RFW pages. He confirmed that this was the
"proof" they showed him at the gate, of what a terrible person I am.
I said, "You know that's mostly lies, except for the DUI, don't you?"
He laughed and said, "Well, that's Golden Era for you!"
Then he left, after cautioning us to abide by Rules of Picket
Engagement. He appeared savvy as to the cult's smear tactics, and their
assumed pose of 'fear.' In other words, he wasn't taking their complaint
too seriously, and he dealt with us professionally, with a touch of
humor, always appreciated. If not gay, he was certainly jolly!
Wow, excellent to know that authorities (at least this policeman) do
NOT buy the Scn movement's on-source application of LRH's paranoid
>It is good to know that the Sheriff's department is privy of their
They are, but it might not do you much good.
For example, Tony Greer was ordered to take the word of "random"
scientologists about my picketing and write a report accusing me of
threatening them with weapons of mass destruction.
He knows what slime they are, but if he is going to keep his job till
he retires, he has to obey orders from Grover Trask's office that has
been corrupted by the cult.
For example, he was ordered to write the below.
DETECTIVE Tony Greer *1146
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Declaration in support of Arrest Warrant
Anthony Greer declares that he is a PEACE OFFICER employed by THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. That he HAS INVESTIGATED THE
REPORTED CRIME of 11418.5 PC That he ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF
alleges the following to be true:
The Defendant, Keith Henson was arrested on 071900 for the above
listed crime. Henson was released per 849(b) (1) PC pending further
Your Declarant conducted a follow-up investigation into this
matter. Your Declarant discovered Internet posting about the Church of
Scientology that where posted on the Internet by Henson. Some of the
postings go as far back as 1995, and others are current. Some of the
current postings talk about GPS (Global Positioning Satellite).
There was a current photograph of Henson and another male subject
taking a GPS reading in front of Golden Era Productions, a company of
the Church of Scientology, located on Gilman Springs road in San
Jacinto. There were other current and old postings talking about
ICBM missiles, Cruise Missiles and others. There were postings from
Henson talking about modern weapons being accurate within a few yards
and many more. Henson also communicates on another Internet WEB site
that talks about explosives.
On 08/03/00, Your Declarant conducted an out of custody interview
Henson. Your Declarant showed Henson numerous Internet writings from
the anti-scientology Internet WEB sites.
Henson admitted to Your Declarant that he posted these writings on
the Internet. Henson told Your Declarant that he posted these to make
David Miscavige, the head of the church paranoid". Henson told Your
Declarant that these posting are "psychological warfare against
them", meaning the church. Henson told Your Declarant that this was
"psychological threat, psychological weaponry only". Henson denied
having any weapon of mass destruction.
Henson told Your Declarant that he has been protesting the Church
of Scientology since 1995, when the church had an Internet WEB site
deleted from the Internet. Later, Henson was sued by the church for
copyright violation, forcing him to file bankruptcy.
Henson told Your Declarant that was involved with pyrotechnics and
explosives as a business and hobby in the early 1970's while living in
Arizona. Henson told Your Declarant that he does responds to questions
and comments on the explosive WEB site.
[There are practical lessons to be learned here--if you are arrested
or even think you might be under investigation, never, ever talk to
the cops without a lawyer, and even there, be sure your lawyer
understands that the cops may be effectively agents of the cult. hkh]
On 08116/00, Your Declarant conducted interviews with five members
of the Church of Scientology, who are assigned to the Golden Era
Productions company. All five told Your Declarant that they have been
told about Henson and are afraid that he will carry out his threats to
blow up the church or Golden Era Productions. All five told Your
Declarant that they have had to adjust bus schedules and work
schedules due to the fear Henson will "lob a grenade or incendiary
device" over the fence into the compound. They told Your Declarant
that there are approx. 100 employees at Golden Era who receives a
page when Henson is at the property. Those paged are to keep the rest
of the employees away from the road in from of Golden Era and the two
tunnels that go under Hwy 79 for fear Henson might blow them up.
Your Declarant feels that the elements of the above section have
been met due to the fear of the victims and the fact that they have
had to alter the business due to that fear.
WHEREFORE, Your Declarant prays that an Arrest Warrant issue for
the arrest during the day or night of Keith Henson WMA 510,200, Brn,
hair Date of Birth 071242. Address of 302 College Street, Palo Alto
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true.
Executed at Hemet, California, on this 17th day of August 2000.
~ CT. FORM 98, 4/68
11418.5. (a) Any person who knowingly threatens to use a weapon of
mass destruction, with the specific intent that the statement as
defined in Section 225 of the Evidence Code or a statement made by
means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
is so unequivocal, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person
threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of
execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to
be in sustained fear for his or her own safety, or for his or her
immediate family's safety shall be punished by imprisonment in a
county jail for up to one year or in the state prison for 3, 4, or 6
years, and by a fine of not more than two hundred fifty thousand
(b) For the purposes of this section, "sustained fear" can be
established by, but is not limited to, conduct such as evacuation of
any building by any occupant, evacuation of any school by any
employee or student, evacuation of any home by any resident or
occupant, any isolation, quarantine, or decontamination effort.
(c) The fact that the person who allegedly violated this section
did not actually possess a biological agent, toxin, or chemical
weapon does not constitute a defense to the crime specified in this
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent
punishment instead pursuant to any other provision of law that
imposes a greater or more severe punishment.
(I was actually charged under other laws, but this should give you an
idea of how easy it is to use the law to prevent protest, claim you
fear them and get them arrested for terrorism.)
Of course I was not arrested. The charges were shakey enough they
needed something else, so Moxon and Tom Gage of the DA's office got a
notice of arraignment issued Sept. 1, 2000. Tom Gage then *lied* to
the court that I had been notified by mail. Moxon had coordinated
with Gage to set up a bogus deposition for me in the Hartodo case
against Graham Berry for the day of the arraignment. It was only
because the cult's lawyers screwed up that I found out about the
arraignment on Sept. 15. Otherwise, I expect I would have been
arrested on camera at the deposition and charged with "failure to
Would they get someone charged if they tried to picket? There is an
improper injunction against picketing at Int that was corruptly issued
by Barry A. Reimer, Commissioner of the Riverside County Superior
The California Code of Civil Procedure Section 580(b)(2) restricts the
authority of the courts in a limited case (which the civil case
against me was), "They may not grant a permanent injunction," and he
Would someone be arrested under an illegal injunction for picketing
Int? The Sheriff's Dept. might tell you if you asked. I would sure
like to see a copy of that injunction.
> It was only
>because the cult's lawyers screwed up that I found out about the
>arraignment on Sept. 15. Otherwise, I expect I would have been
>arrested on camera at the deposition and charged with "failure to
>Would they get someone charged if they tried to picket? There is an
>improper injunction against picketing at Int that was corruptly issued
>by Barry A. Reimer, Commissioner of the Riverside County Superior
>The California Code of Civil Procedure Section 580(b)(2) restricts the
>authority of the courts in a limited case (which the civil case
>against me was), "They may not grant a permanent injunction," and he
>Would someone be arrested under an illegal injunction for picketing
>Int? The Sheriff's Dept. might tell you if you asked. I would sure
>like to see a copy of that injunction.
Thanks to Abelson screwing up, I now have a copy of the injunction.
Oddly it was *not* signed by Barry A. Reimer, but by Robert A.
Trujillo, a private lawyer acting as a pro tem judge.
I also saw the signed judgment for the first time and it wasn't signed
by Reimer either! His name had been scratched out and Robert A.
Trujillo's printed in then signed.
This is really weird. I never had any notice that the case had been
farmed out to a lawyer (pro tem) for signing and entry of judgment.
The Riverside courts are even stranger than I thought if they permit
According to my lawyer, Reimer was under heavy duress, his voice
breaking and his hands shaking, when he read scientology's papers to
my lawyer that gave them the summary judgment.
So did Reimer later balk at signing and the cult had to bring in
someone more "flexible" especially to get the injunction that is just
not permitted in a limited case? Who is this guy Trujillo? There is
only one lawyer with that name nearby. It seems he and his wife run a
Robert A. Trujillo
Melody A. Trujillo
Their office is just around the corner from the Temecula org.
There is very little else on the web, no cases with his have been
webbed that I could find. (But someone with Lexis might do better.)
Since he was a judge in a case against me (even though I only found
out today) I would probably get in trouble for calling him. But it
sure would be interesting to see what he would say to a reporter about
how he came take over a case without notice and sign a judgment and a
clearly illegal injunction.
PS. If anyone finds a scientology connection to either of them,
please let me know.
Why don't you just give yourself up like a man and do your prison time,
Barbara Schwarz (Looking for the original Mark [Marty] Rathbun. No
(I am concerned about Dave Touretzky's activities. He also has bomb
instructions on the net.) http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
Brian J. Bruns aka Burns plays a "cop" on the net but he is a felon
(computer crimes), a spammer, an anti-free speech activist, and the abusive
AHBL website is his. He lies about me on his website and is disturbed.
Inmate # 445064, FBI: 843935WB8
Bruns is the abuser, and he is supported by Korey Jerome Kruse ("Lord Xenu",
"Simkatu" or "Vivaldi") who also just came out of jail and is, according to
the courts, an habitual offender. He also was ordered to undergo psych
evaluation. Of course it didn't help.
>Thanks to Abelson screwing up, I now have a copy of the injunction.
>Oddly it was *not* signed by Barry A. Reimer, but by Robert A.
>Trujillo, a private lawyer acting as a pro tem judge.
>I also saw the signed judgment for the first time and it wasn't signed
>by Reimer either! His name had been scratched out and Robert A.
>Trujillo's printed in then signed.
>This is really weird.
Here is the uncorrected OCR of the latest bankruptcy motion against
me. I am in the middle of responding to it. If anyone wants these in
.pdf form, ask. Keith Henson
CASE NO. 98-51326 ASW-7 ADV. NO. 035136
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. ง 56 AND BKRTCY.C. ง 7056
Date: TO BE SET Time: TO BE SET Courtroom: 3099
Judge: Arthur S. Weissbrodt
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS 2
I. Defendant's Criminal Conviction Under Cal. Penal Code ง 422.6
II. Plaintiffs' Judgment Under Cal. Civil Code ง 52.1 10
I. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL IS APPLICABLE HERE 12
IL THE ISSUES DECIDED IN THE STATE COURT JUDGMENT ARE
IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUES UNDER 11 U.S.C. ง 523(A)(6) 14
A. The Requirements of Section 523(a)(6) Have Been Met 14
1. Defendant's Acts Were Willful and I-Ie Committed the Injury
2. Defendant's Acts Were Also Maliciously Intended to and Did
3. The Cases Cited by the Court on March 10 Support Plaintiffs'
4. An Intention to Invade Civil Rights Comports with the
Requirements of ง 523(a)(6) 21
5. The Statutory Damages Award Is Nondischargeable Under
Plaintiffs HILARY DEZOTELL. KEN HODEN. AND BRUCE WAGONER
("Plaintiffs") bring this motion under Bkrtcy.C. ง 523(a)(6). to
determine the nondischargeability of a civil monetary judgment
obtained by Plaintiffs in the action in the Superior Court. County of
Riverside, Hemet Branch, entitled Hilary Dezotell, Ken Hoden, and
Bruce Wagoner v. H. Keith Henson, Case No. 1-IEC 009 673.
The motion is based upon a simple core of undisputable facts. Each of
the Plaintiffs herein was personally injured by Defendant's willful
and malicious conduct as he intended, and as required under Bkrtcy.C.
ง 523(a)(6) and further defined by the United States Supreme Court and
the Ninth Circuit. These Plaintiffs were the complaining witnesses
whose complaints and testimony provided the basis for a criminal
conviction of Defendant under Cal. Penal Code ง 422.6. for violation
of their civil rights under California's hate crime laws. They are
also the same persons who won summary judgment against Defendant under
Cal. Civil Code ง 52.1. resulting in a judgment, including a statutory
award of $25,000 per Plaintiff and $23.666.65 in attorneys' fees.
In the March 10, 2006 hearing on Plaintiffs' earlier summary judgment
motion. the Court raised a number of concerns regarding whether the
criminal and/or civil judgments against Defendant support the
application of collateral estoppel in this adversary proceeding. Those
included whether the judgments were in favor of these Plaintiffs or
their group: whether these Plaintiffs themselves showed harm in the
prior proceedings: and whether the injury for which Plaintiffs
received damages are the type of injury that 1 1 U.S.C. ง 523(a)(6)
renders non-dischargeable. Plaintiffs will show herein that
application of the law to the facts resolves all of those questions
and results in the conclusion that there is no genuine issue of
material fact, and that the Plaintiffs appearing before this Court -
the only complaining witnesses on whose testimony and charges the
criminal trial was held and the only Plaintiffs to whom the state
court awarded a civil judgment - are entitled to judgment as a matter
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This is a classic nondischarueability action brought under the court's
under 1 1 U.S.C. ง 157(b)(2)(A), (K). & (0).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
L Defendant's Criminal Conviction Under Cal. Penal Code ง 422.6
During the summer of 2000, Defendant intimidated, oppressed,
threatened, interfered with, and injured Plaintiffs in numerous ways.
As a result of his conduct, the District Attorney for (Riverside
County charged Defendant with a violation of Cal. Penal Code ง 422.6.
In particular. the Amended Complaint stated that Defendant:
committed a violation of Penal Code section 422.6. a Misdemeanor. in
that on or about July 1. 2000 through and including September 1, 2000,
in the County of Riverside. State of California, he did willfully and
unlawfully by force or threat of force. injure, intimidate, interfere
with, oppress, or threaten another person. to wit BRUCE WAGONER.
HILARY DEZOTELL ...' in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this
state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States because of
the other person's race. color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
disability, gender, or sexual orientation. or because he or she
perceives that the other person has one or more of those
Plaintiffs herein were specifically named victims, i.e., the Amended
Complaint charged Defendant with injuring these Plaintiffs.'
On April 26, 2001, a Riverside County jury convicted Defendant of the
section 422.6 violation. The jury's conviction was based on the
evidence presented to it in a trial attended by Defendant and his
attorney, James Harr. Defendant's attorney fully participated in the
' Three other people were named in the amended criminal complaint.
Abelson Dec.. Ex. A, but were deleted as victims. and Ken Hoden was
added as a victim by minute order on April 19, 2001. Abelson Dec.. Ex.
2 This charge was based on the language of section 422.6, which
(a) No person. whether or not acting under color of law. shall by
force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate. interfere
with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or
enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the
Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of
the United States in whole or in part because of one or more, of the
actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in
subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
motions before and after trial, cross-examining prosecution witnesses.
including Plaintiffs. and making arguments at trial, and otherwise.
Declaration of Elliot Abelson. 3 ("Abelson Dec."). Three victims
testified at trial, i.e.. the Plaintiffs herein. As stated during the
testimony of Plaintiff Ken Hoden, the three complaining parties at the
time of trial were these Plaintiffs. Id. Ex. C, at 206:24-207:4.
Each Plaintiff testified to his or her knowledge of Defendant's
violent background and to Defendant's conduct targeting them, as well
as their fellow Church staff. and how it had affected them. The most
comprehensive testimony was by Mr. Hoden. He testified to Defendant's
activities, to their effects on him both personally and in the
performance of his job as General Manager of the Church of
Scientology's Golden Era Productions facility,' and to the reasons why
Defendant's acts were so intimidating. threatening, and oppressive,
and so interfered with Mr. Hoden's practice of his religion.
Concerning those activities, Mr. I-loden testified there were two
underpasses or tunnels that go under the highway through the Golden
Era property so the staff could go from one side of the highway to the
other without having to cross dangerous traffic. Abelson Dec., Ex. C
at 137:27-138:10. He testified that Defendant:
showed up at the church in late May or early June and he was there for
about three months. and he would show up day after day after day for
close to 40 days or more. It just went day after day. And what he
would do is he would go along the highway, and as I explained, we have
the two pedestrian tunnels. And what he would do is he would run along
to the top of the tunnel, and as the staff, the church staff would
finish a meal. or were going from one building to another, he would
stand over the top of the tunnel and he would jeer or cackle at the
staff in there. And then what he would do is he would go home that
night. or wherever he went to, and then he would go and post all the
things that he did during the day on the internet so that everybody in
the world could read them. And what he would do is when the - all our
staff, we have about 750 staff, and they all live in Hemet and San
Jacinto.... So when they would come in the morning in their cars or
their buses, or they would pull in, he would be there in the morning
standing in front of the gate, running around the buses. you know,
yelling at the staff in the buses. glaring at the women that were
driving in their cars.
3 Mr. Roden testified that Golden Era is "the division of the church
that deals with the audio/visual materials for the church. It makes
all the instructional films, and videos, and tapes for all of the
Churches of Scientology around the world." Id. at 152:26-153:7.
Id. at 142:15-143:11. These activities by Defendant interfered with
Mr. Hoden's performance of his normal duties as a church executive, as
he had to take drastic measures to ensure the safety of his staff. For
example. he had to re-route the staff to go under the highway through
the other tunnel in order to go from their offices to the dining hall
for three meals a day, or to go to the chapel, studio. or other
buildings. because Defendant would come out to the tunnels when staff
were going back and forth to meals. Id. at 156:7-158:24. This
continued during a period from May to September in which Defendant
appeared there almost daily. Mr. I Ioden continuously had to re-route
the staff back and forth between these two tunnels, depending on which
one Defendant was at. because he was fearful that Defendant '`might
throw a bomb over or might throw something on top of them to hurt
them." Id. at 156:14-17. 161:3-4.
Mr. I-Ioden also testified that he had to deal with Defendant's
intimidation and interference with Church buses:
Every day he was there it got a little bit more and a little bit more.
Then what he would do is he would come there in the morning and at the
end of the day when the staff would go home, and he would follow the
buses in his car. And he would pull up behind the car, he'd pull up
beside the car ... He would pull around the car, go to the side of the
car, go ahead of the car, zoom ahead to get to where their apartments
were .. .
Id. at 144:24-145:1. 3-5. Mr. Hoden saw Defendant:
One, ... following the bus. Number two, [he] saw [Defendant] there one
time at 6:30 in the morning where our staff would go out to work and
all of a sudden he'd be standing there, or he'd be in his car taking
pictures of each - of the people as they walked out. Or he would have
a little pad, and he would look at the people and look at their
license plate and write it down. Then he would get in his car and
follow the buses. After this happened a couple days. what [he] used to
have to do is [he] used to go to the apartment buildings in the
morning, and if [Defendant] was there [he] had to reroute the buses a
whole different way.
Id. at 145:14-25. Mr. Hoden also saw Defendant at the staff apartments
taking pictures. Id. at 146:23-147:2.
Mr. I-loden was also fearful that Defendant might participate in
launching a missile attack at Golden Era. He saw a posting by
Defendant talking about "'a good topo[graphical] map,- and stating
that '`' [t]he approach is clear from the south.' HHe testified that
he was concerned because
this was part of a discussion
about sending missiles to attack the church. and he was referring to a
route where a missile could come and hit either our chapel or one of
the other buildings from the south, because there's no mountains to
the south, where a topography map would measure where the mountains
are or not.
Id. at 179:8-12. 19-20, 28-180:14. There was also testimony about
other postings in which Defendant participated and discussed missiles
being sent to Golden Era during the criminal trial. Abelson Dec., Exs.
C, at 180:19-182:9. 184:15-186:15.
Defendant's clear intention to take actions to destroy the Church of
Scientology and its staff was signaled in other postings. and all of
these contributed to the intimidation and fear experienced by Mr.
Hoden. For example, criminal exhibit 10 contained a discussion by
various people in a posting thread in which Defendant participated.
After one of them announced that their common goal was "to stop the
Church of Scientology illegal and inhumane practices, or to destroy it
utterly without sorrow, belief system and all,- Defendant responded:
"`Either would work for me. but the latter seems like an easier task.'
Id.. Ex. C, at 193:2-28.
Mr. Hoden also testified about the background facts concerning
Defendant that gave him cause for concern. They included:
(1) a book entitled Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman
Condition. which details activities by Defendant and his former wife.
including the construction of very large bombs and setting them off in
the desert. Indeed. portions of the book were read on the record at
the trial. One quotes Defendant's wife as characterizing herself and
Defendant as "'semi-professional explosives experts- and
'`accomplished pyromaniacs.''" Another describes a "'mock atomic bomb"
that "-made an incredible fire ball and mushroom cloud,' which they
"topped" the following week with "'a device that would not only look
like an atomic bomb explosion. it would actually work like one."' When
they set it off, "[a] shock wave blast them forth like the world was
coming to an end right there in southern Arizona." The book even
included Defendant's description of the technical aspects of how to
make such a device. Abelson Dec.. Ex. C. at 141:21-142:2.
163:27-166:4. Another of Defendant's activities that caused Mr. Hoden
to be concerned about his threats and intimidation of Mr. Hoden and
his staff was Defendant's
participation in cutting up dead bodies. Id. at 166:5-167:14.
(2) Mr. I-loden had seen numerous postings Defendant made on the
Internet stating that hf hated the Church of Scientology and wanted to
destroy it. Id. at 167:26-168:3. For example, in one such posting that
was authenticated in the criminal case as Exhibit 24A, Defendant had
stated '"[tJhe annihilation of the Church of Scientology and all its
fronts is a worthy goal."' Id. at 170:4-14: 171:1-4. "[T]hat was
alarming to [Mr. Hoden], somebody would want to annihilate [his]
church." Id. at 171:4-8.
(3) Mr. Hoden saw a 1992 U.S. Patent held by Defendant that was a
-Method of launching ~ayloads. Id. at 200:16-201:10.
as asked how that made him feel. He testified:
It made me feel frightened, because the man obviously knew something
about missiles. I mean, if he's got a patent on missiles, or how to
shoot missiles off, or how to put payloads in missiles, it concerned
me a great deal. And a lot of people aren't threatening me with
missiles. . . . It made me feel . . . frightened for me, frightened
for my wife who lives here with me in the valley, frightened for my
d. at 202:16-22, 27-203:5. He was frightened because he "took it
serious" and because he "didn't ant bad things to happen to [his]
wife."' He also had "a personal fear that [he] was going to get urt,"
and there was fear for his staff. Id. at 203:13-15; 237:14-26.
Defendant's daily Internet postings announcing what he had done that
day to intimidate or interfere with Church staff augmented Mr. Hoden's
concerns and fears. "[I]n those postings as -ach day went there was
more and more derogatory or hateful information ...." Id. at 147:8-11.
is can be seen in Plaintiff Hoden's testimony about some of those
postings in the trial. The estimony shows why Plaintiff was concerned
and also shows that the jury's verdict was based on is impression that
Defendant wilfully and maliciously intended to create fear. to
intimidate, to hreaten. to oppress, and to interfere with the
activities of all the Church staff, including the
Plaintiffs. and that he was happy to be doing so.
For example, in one posting Defendant stated:" [i]t is an impressive
sight to see them getting under cover like roaches when the kitchen
light is turned on." Id. at 171:16-172:16. In another, he crowed that
his actions were "killing their stats."4 Id. at 172:19-173:17.
He sometimes signed those postings '"Keith Henson from the Hemet
front."' reflecting that he considered that he was making war on the
Church of Scientology and its individual staff. Id. at 174:15-18:
189:16-19. In a posting he admitted that he had stopped at staff
apartments '"to collect more addresses, and that he would post later
about "'what to do with the addresses,""" and that his threats and
intimidation were disrupting Church activities and that he was viewed
as dangerous. Id. at 174:5-175:5. 176:2-5, 20-23.
He also gloated over making Church staff "paranoid." Id. at
177:3-178:21. And he acknowledged the severe degree to which he was
interfering with the Church's staff which included the Plaintiffs
herein, on more than one occasion. Id. at 189:21-190:19. 194:8.
195:20. 26-196:6. 14-197:10. In another posting, he gleefully admitted
that he was terrifying all the Church staff at Golden Era. Id. at
Like Mr. Hoden, Plaintiff Bruce Wagoner testified that postings on the
Internet by Defendant showed that he had a hatred for the Scientology
religion and "would like to destroy Scientology and Scientologists
utterly ...." Abelson Dec., Ex. C, at 312:14-17. Mr. Wagoner also
learned that Defendant (1) "had instructed children in pyrotechnics
and how to make pipe bombs, which indicated to [Mr. Wagoner] that the
man has the capability to do destructive things and is also
dangerous"; (2) "has the capability of making explosives devices, is
considered to be an expert in that, and is dangerous"; and (3) earlier
had a cannon and "assorted guns, rifles and other hardware." Id. at
312:17-21, 25-27: 313:20-23. Mr. Wagoner saw Defendant "hanging over
the fence at . . . the church. looking over." Id. at 318:10-11.
Defendant was "yelling at other people that were there." Id. at
318:11-13. Mr. Wagoner also testified that he
The word stats refers to statistics. The Church uses a management
system that is based on statistics, and so Defendant's gloating over
"killing their stats" shows his deliberate intention to parry on his
activities to disrupt Church staff. Abelson Dec. 4- 5.
saw [Defendant] on the road. and at times he would run from one gate
to another. And this was at a time when [church] buses were coming in
with the staff in them. And he would literally get out in front of
them or in their way so he could be near them. And it was, you know, I
took it as an intimidation of the people by him. And I was concerned
about that, too, because I thought maybe he was going to attack the
Id. at 318:13-20 (emphasis supplied).
Mr. Wagoner testified that when he learned of Defendant's history in
conjunction with his current activities, Mr. Wagoner "became
frightened. I actually was scared for my own well-being and for my
fellows'. because I felt that there was a real threat here of somebody
who would like to destroy and do harm to us." Id. at 319:17-23. That
fear existed because Defendant's threats were not merely on paper - he
was physically there where Plaintiff Wagoner worked and where he
Well. these - there are threats in here against my religion as a
Scientologist. But it's not just that it's a piece of paper. I mean,
there is literally a man in front of my office walking up and down the
street, and he is the one that made these threats. And they're against
me, because I am a Scientologist. too. But it isn't just that. It's
like, I know that this man can make explosives. I know he has said he
would like to destroy the church and Scientologists utterly. And it's
not even at work. I go home, and I come out in the morning, and there
he is in front of my house. This is - this is not normal. This causes
me great concern, personally and for my friends as well.
Id. at 320:1-12. Mr. Wagoner testified about a particular morning when
he left for work and a car was driving at about three miles an hour in
front of his home. As he looked into the car, he saw Defendant
"literally peering out at [him], looking at what [he] was doing,
glaring at [him] through the car windshield. [I lc] was concerned
about it. [He] had other people with [him]. and he didn't know if
[Defendant] might attack the car." Id. at 317:12-25.
Plaintiff Hilary Dezotell also testified to having the same background
information about Defendant. Id. at 330:27-331:10. She testified that
Defendant's background "made [her] feel really nervous. . . . what
with the Chicken Mambo thing I'd read and the whole thing about
explosives, I felt really threatened. I felt really scared." Id. at
331:1-13. When the District Attorney asked her why she felt scared,
Ms. Dezotell responded:
Because he blows things up and has done it, you know, and brags
about how great it is to see hundred-foot-high flames. And people blow
things up. and it's happened before.' And I'm vulnerable for myself as
well as the people I work with. I couldn't even bring people up
sometimes to come and visit. I told them not to come because I was - I
felt really interfered with, you know. like intimidated and scared. is
how I felt.
d. at 331:17-26. As for the behavior by Defendant that Ms. Dezotell
personally observed, she estified that her office is "very close to
the highway. And he was peering over the fence right in he window."
This was only "about 15 feet to [her] window.'' Id. at 332:2-14. She
further o escribed what occurred:
He was right across - he was on the highway on the verge, and right on
the other side of our fence. And I was just, you know, opening the
Venetian blinds, and he was peering in. He had this sign and his hat
and what have you, his backpack and stuff.
d. at 332:23-333:1. This also interfered with her ability to perform
her duties. The facility has "a ecording studio on the other side of
the property" for making religious films. Therefore. she has to go all
over the property with the people that [she] work[s] with . . . the
actors and singers .. .
d [she' couldn't . . . [she] was restricted. [She] wasn't going to go
under the tunnel where he's anging over the tunnel. You know. it made
the hair stand up on the back of [her] neck. It nterfered with [her].
Sometimes [she] couldn't go to the chapel for [herself].... [she]
couldn't oo [her] job in a normal fashion." Id. at 333:10-21.
Ms. Dezotell also testified that she "thought [Defendant] was going to
blow something up." d. at 337:11.
The testimony of these victims and others including two Sheriff's
Deputies to whom Defendants had admitted his intent to create fear and
paranoia (Abelson Dec., Ex. D at 273:11-20; e 41:24-25: 341:26-342:2;
see Ex. F. at 8-9.), resulted in a jury conviction of Defendant for
iolations of Plaintiffs' civil and constitutional rights under Penal
Code ง 422.6.
Mr. I-loden also testified that there had been an earlier situation at
the Church in l'ortland. Oregon where a person sent a toy tank into
the Church with a sign saying "Next time it
'11 be real." And although it was reported to the police, nothing was
done about it. but then the Berson came back and shot several people,
one of whom was paralyzed as a result. Id. at 207:19-,08:16.
II. Plaintiffs' Judgment Under Cal. Civil Code ง 52.1
Cal. Civil Code ง 52.1 provides a companion civil cause of action to
Penal Code ง 422.6. It states, in part:
(a) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of
law, interferes by threats. intimidation, or coercion. or attempts to
interfere by threats. intimidation, or coercion. with the exercise or
enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by
the Constitution or laws of this state, the Attorney General, or any
district attorney or city attorney may bring a civil action for
injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the name of the
people of the State of California. in order to protect the peaceable
exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. An action
brought by the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any city
attorney may also seek a civil penalty of twenty-five thousand dollars
(S25,000). If this civil penalty is requested, it shall be assessed
individually against each person who is determined to have violated
this section and the penalty shall be awarded to each individual whose
rights under this section are determined to have been violated.
(b) Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured
by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured
by the Constitution or laws of this state, has been interfered with,
or attempted to be interfered with, as described in subdivision (a),
may institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her
own behalf a civil action for damages, including. but not limited to,
damages under Section 52, injunctive relief, and other appropriate
equitable relief to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the
right or rights secured.
(Emphasis supplied.) Assembly Bill 2719 explained that "[s]ection 52.1
of the Civil Code guarantees the exercise or enjoyment by any
individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the
Constitution or laws of this state tirithout regard to his or her
membership in a protected class identified by its race, color,
religion. or sex. among other things." (Emphasis added.)
Following Defendant's criminal conviction, Plaintiffs obtained the
monetary judgment that they request this Court to determine is
nondischargeable under Civil Code ง 52.1. They were the sole
Plaintiffs in the state court civil action. The state trial court
granted summary adjudication of that claim and awarded statutory
damages thereunder to these Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for summary adjudication of the First
Cause of Action on June 14. 2002, and Defendant responded. through his
counsel. Abelson Dec.. Exs. D and E. The summary adjudication motion
sought a finding of collateral estoppel on the basis that Penal Code
Iง 422.6 "is the penal statutory equivalent to the first cause of
action in Plaintiffs' complaint." Id.
I x. D. at 2:6-11.
Plaintiffs argued that Defendant had "engaged in anti-religious
conduct in violation of civil ights in repeated. planned, willful, and
malicious acts of harassment. stalking, threatening Behavior, and
other acts inspired by his hatred for Scientology and Scientologists"
and that his 'conduct was directed at Plaintiffs as well as other
staff members of Golden Era who were all .racticing
Scientologists.'Id. at 2:20-24. They also noted that they were named
as victims in the riminal complaint. Id. at 3:8. They further informed
the court of Defendant's full participation in he criminal case
through the trial proceedings and even in post-trial motions. Id. at
3:18-4:2. ' laintiffs argued that: "The issues determined in the
criminal case were identical to the issues nvolved herein: Henson's
intimidation. oppression and threats which interfered with Plaintiffs'
eedom of religion. These issues were necessarily determined in the
criminal case and were eroven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury
through testimony ...." In their memorandum and .eparate statement.
Plaintiffs summarized their testimony as stated above. Id. at
4:3-8:24. They .Iso summarized testimony by Riverside County Sheriffs
Deputies Anthony Greer and Michael
I' owe from the criminal case. including Defendant's admissions to
them that the events recorded n The Great Mambo Chicken and the
Transhuman Condition occurred," and that "he was waging psychologicial
warfare' against the Scientologists to make them paranoid." Id. at
The memorandum also informed the state court that Henson's appeal of
his criminal onviction had been dismissed under the fugitive
entitlement doctrine. Id. at 10:7-10; Abelson IP ec., Ex. F.
Plaintiffs argued the elements of collateral estoppel in their
memorandum. After citing onsiderable California case law on the
subject of collateral estoppel. Plaintiffs showed how (1) he issues in
the civil case were identical to those in the criminal case and
therefore were ecessarily decided: (2) the trial court decision was
final; (3) it was against the same Defendant: .nd (4) it was actually
and fully litigated. Id. at 11-17. The criminal case facts pertinent
to the ivil summary judgment motion were listed in Plaintiffs'
Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts n Support of Motion for Summary
Adjudication of Liability. Id. Ex. G. The facts laid out there
1 Pre cnmmari7eri from the rriniinal race tectimnnv
A hearing was held on August 26, 2002. In granting summary
adjudication, the state court noted that it had considered the
evidence and the separate statements. and the arguments presented by
counsel. It held that "the Plaintiffs have established through
uncontroverted facts that the four points of collateral estoppel have
been met." It found that "the issues to be decided in Count 1 of
Plaintiffs' complaint are identical to the issues" in Defendant's
criminal conviction under Penal Code ง 422.6. The court found that
"[t]he legal elements of Penal Code ง 422.6 and Civil Code ง 52.1
appear to be identical (except that one is a public offense and the
other is a civil wrong)." It further found the prior judgment to be
final and that Defendant had fully litigated the issues in the
criminal case. Id. Ex. H. at 2. The court therefore held that:
Plaintiffs' cause of action against Defendant for interfering with
Plaintiffs' constitutional [sic] protected rights of association and
free exercise of religion stands adjudicated based on the verdict in
the prior criminal proceeding. thus Plaintiffs are entitled to summary
adjudication upon Count l of their complaint herein as there is no
triable issue as to any material fact as to the First Cause of Action,
for violation of Civil Code ง 52.1.
Id. at 3.
On September 4, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting a final
judgment and an order: (1) for permanent injunctive relief to be
entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant: (2) for
statutory civil penalties in the amount of $75.000 ($25.000 per
Plaintiff): and (3) for reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Civil
Code ง 52.1(h). in the amount of $23.666.65. That motion for final
judgment was unopposed by Defendant and was granted by the Court on
October 7, 2002. The final judgment was signed on October 7. 2002 and
served on Defendant's then counsel on October 15, 2002 and the
permanent injunction was signed on October 8, 2002 and served on
Defendant's counsel on October 9. 2002. Copies of the final judgment
and permanent injunction are attached as Exhibits I and J to the
Abelson Declaration and are incorporated herein. In the Final
Judgment. the court awarded these Plaintiffs $25,000 each in statutory
damages and attorneys' fees of $23,666.65.
I. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL IS APPLICABLE HERE
Collateral estoppel applies in a Bankruptcy Court proceeding when a
state court has
adjudicated the claims of the parties leading to a final decision. See
In re Bonnie Moore, 186 B.R. 962.968 (Bankr. N.D.Cal. 1995). In such a
case. the Bankruptcy Court must apply the collateral estoppel law of
the state that rendered the underlying judgment to determine if it is
bound to apply collateral estoppel to the case before the Court. Id..
citing In re Bugna, 33 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9`h Cir. 1994).
The Bugna court summarized the California law on this subject. It
stated that collateral estoppel bars relitigation when: "(1) the issue
decided in the prior action is identical to the issue presented in the
second action: (2) there was a final judgment on the merits: and (3)
the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party . . . to the
prior adjudication." Bugna, 33 F.3d at 1057. citing Garrett v. City
and County of San Francisco. 818 F.2d 1515, 1520 (9th Cir.1987).
There can be no question that the party against whom the estoppel is
asserted here was a party to the civil case. Defendant here is the
same Defendant against whom the complaint was filed, and against whom
the state court entered summary judgment and final judgment.
Furthermore, as the state civil court found. Defendant was also the
criminal Defendant whom the criminal court found guilty under Penal
Code ง 422.6, and who received a one-year jail sentence. The court
also found that Defendant was represented by counsel and fully
participated in the criminal proceedings. Abelson Dec., Ex. H, at 2.
As the state court also acknowledged. Defendant was represented by
counsel Karen Novorr in the civil proceedings.
There is also no possible argument that either t
There is also no possible argument that either the state civil or
criminal judgments were not final. In both instances, Defendant
appealed the trial court judgments. And in both instances, the
appellate courts dismissed Defendant's appeal under the fugitive
disentitlement doctrine because ie had fled the country following his
conviction. Abelson Dec., Exs. F and K.
The remaining question under collateral estoppel is whether the issues
decided in the state civil judgment are identical to the issues here,
as they were to the issues in the criminal case. Many of the questions
posed by the Court in the March 10 summary judgment hearing related to
this prong of the test for collateral estoppel, which involves a
discussion of various issues. This factor therefore will be discussed
in a separate section.
THE ISSUES DECIDED IN THE STATE COURT JUDGMENT ARE IDENTICAL TO THE
ISSUES UNDER 11 U.S.C. ง 523(A)(6)
These Plaintiffs are entitled to the application of collateral
estoppel in that the conduct that ormed the basis of the judgment in
the underlying civil action was premised on facts and resulted in
legal conclusions that are sufficient to demonstrate that the debt is
nondischargeable under I: krtcy.C. ง 523(a)(6), as to these specific
A. The Requirements of Section 523(a)(6) Have Been Met
11 U.S.C. ง 523(a)(6) provides that a discharge "does not discharge an
om any debt . . . (6) for willful and malicious injury by the debtor
to another entity or the property of another entity." In 1998, the
Supreme Court issued its decision in Kawaauhau v. Geiger. 523
.S. 57 (1998). enunciating the standards under which the willful and
malicious requirements of section 523(a)(6) were to be applied.
In this circuit. the two leading post-Geiger cases discussing the
standard under 11 U.S.C. ง .23(a)(6) are In re Banks (Banks v. Gill
Distribution Centers, Inc.), 263 F.3d 862 (9'h Cir. 2001)
d In re Jercich (Petra/la v. Jercich), 238 F.3d 1202 (9`h Cir. 2001),
in which the Ninth Circuit eld that plaintiff bears the affirmative
burden of proof to show that the debtor intended to commit he injury
suffered by plaintiff. In Banks. the court stated:
Title 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6) prevents discharge from any debt "for
willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or the
property of another entity." The Supreme Court held this to require a
"deliberate or intentional injury, not merely a deliberate or
intentional act which causes injury." Kmvaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S.
57. 61, 118 S.Ct. 974. 140 L.Ed.2d 90 (1998). Before Geiger, we did
not require proof of intent to injure, but only that an intentional
wrongful act necessarily produced harm, and was without just cause or
excuse. See Impulsora del Territorio Sur, S.A. v. Cecchini (In re
Cecchini), 780 F.2d 1440, 1443 (9''1 Cir. 1986).
63 F.3d at 869. The Debtor in Banks intended to injure the adversary
Plaintiff by forcing it to ake either substantially less than it was
owed under a settlement agreement. or maybe even othing. The Debtor
knew this was a wrongful act and had no justification for it, and he
had also .ttempted to delay the Plaintiff from getting to the bottom
of what he had wrongfully done with the oney. Id. The debt was
therefore nondischargeable. Id at 869-890.
1. Defendant's Acts Were Willful and He Committed the Injury
In In re Jercich (Petra/la v. Jercich), 238 F.3d 1202. 1207(9`h Cir.
2001), the court stated hat in Geiger, the Supreme Court "clarified
that it is insufficient under ง 523(a)(6) to show that the o ebtor
acted willfully and that the injury was negligently or recklessly
inflicted; instead. it must be .hown not only that the debtor acted
willfully, but also that the debtor inflicted the injury willfully
d maliciously rather than recklessly or negligently." Id. at 1207
(emphasis in original). Jercich ddressed the question that was left
open in the Geiger decision - "the precise state of mind equired to
satisfy ง 523(a)(6)'s 'willful' standard.' Id.
The Jercich court held that "the willful injury requirement of ง
523(a)(6) is met when it is .hown either that the debtor had a
subjective motive to inflict the injury or that the debtor believed
hat injury was substantially certain to occur as a result of his
conduct." It further stated its belief 'that this holding comports
with the purpose of bankruptcy law's fundamental policy of granting o
ischarges only to the honest but unfortunate debtor." Id. at 1208.
"Under this definition, the ctor's deliberate act with knowledge that
the act is substantially certain to cause injury is sufficient o
establish willful intent." Id.
In Jercich, the court found that the Debtor committed a willful act by
failing to pay wages. .nd instead using the money for his own personal
benefit. Id. at 1208-1209.
Applying this standard to the facts of this case shows that the state
court findings already - stablish this element and therefore support
the conclusion that the issues are identical on this .oint. First, the
state civil court found that the legal issues in the civil case were
identical to those n the criminal case. In reaching that conclusion,
the state court had before it Plaintiffs' omparison of the two
statutes. Ex. D. at 12.
Second. Penal Code ง 422.6 requires that the crime have been committed
willfully. It is a .pecific intent crime and requires the prosecutor
to prove that the defendant `'willfully" and `specifically intended"
to injure his victims. In re M.S., 10 Cal.4th 698, 713. 42 Cal.Rptr.2d
355, 96 P.2d 1365 (1995). In M.S.. the defendants were convicted of
violating ง 422.6 against the ictims, homosexual men. The defendants
challenged the constitutionality of the statute and in o oing so,
raised the issue of whether ง 422.6 was void because the threats must
be immediate or
imminent. The California Supreme Court rejected this argument noting
that a "threat" as that term is defined in 422.6 is an expression of
an intent to inflict evil. injury. or damage on another." 10 Cal. 4`h
at 710, 42 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 361. Therefore, ง 422.6(a) "expressly
requires that a punishable threat be willful . . ." and "one must
specifically intend, by means of threats of violence to another
person. to invade interests protected by constitutional or statutory
authority." Id. at 712-713: 42 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 363. Thus, it
concluded that to Lind a criminal defendant guilty of violating
section 422.6 "requires proof that defendants willfully engaged in the
prohibited conduct." Id. at 718, 42 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 363, 367
(emphasis in original).
Third. under the statutory language and this California Supreme Court
case, Defendant's criminal conviction here for violation of
Plaintiffs' civil rights necessarily means that the jury found he
willfully expressed intention to inflict evil, injury. or damage on
Plaintiffs - the zomplaining victims who testified - and the criminal
trial testimony proved that he had done so. Plaintiffs presented those
facts to the state civil court, which accepted Plaintiffs' factual
-ontentions as uncontroverted. ruling that it need not address factual
contentions advanced by
efendant because "they [were] not addressed to the accuracy of the
criminal trial proceeding."
x. H, at 2-3. As the state civil court held, "[i]mplicit in the jury
verdict is a finding of truth as to -11 material elements to be
The Ninth Circuit has also held that findings implicit in a state
court judgment. even if not explicitly expressed, are to be given
preclusive effect in an action under section 523(a)(6). In In re
Diamond, 285 F.3d 822. 825 (9th Cir. 2002), the Ninth Circuit rejected
arguments that a claim should not be nondischargeable under section
523(a)(6) because "the state court action did not determine the issue
of intentional injury, which was necessary to find nondischargeability
based on a 'willful or malicious injury' under ง 523(a)(6)." The court
found that "[t]he state court judgment necessarily included this
essential element of ง 523(a)(6)" because:
In order to find fraud. the jury had to determine that there was
intentional tortious conduct. Therefore, the issues implicated by
ง 523(a)(6) were actually litigated in the state court proceeding. and
the bankruptcy court was correct to accord the state court judgment
preclusive effect with regard to the Kolcums' ง 523(a)(6) claim.
Id at 828.
This analysis squarely resolves the inquiry by the Court at the prior
hearing, the subject matter of which was whether these Plaintiffs
individually could properly prosecute a claim under Section 523(a)(6).
Here, the state civil court necessarily found Defendant committed
intentionally tortious conduct when it ruled the issues on the First
Cause of Action were identical to those in the criminal case and
granted summary adjudication of the claim by these very Plaintiffs,
again addressing this Court's expressed concern that these Plaintiffs
have sustained a cognizable injury. In doing so, it also necessarily
accepted the allegations of that claim and the facts provided in
Plaintiffs' memorandum and separate statement as true.
The state court summary judgment order and final judgment thus are for
willful acts that Defendant committed. as to these very Plaintiffs. As
Jercich requires, there can be no dispute that Defendant had a
subjective motive to injure Plaintiffs' Constitutional and civil
rights to practice their religion, or that he knew that his extensive
intimidating. threatening. oppressive and interfering conduct was
substantially certain to do so, as he intended to willfully and
maliciously injure these three people.
2. Defendant's Acts Were Also Maliciously Intended to and Did
The Jercich court defined "malicious injury" as one that involves "(1)
a wrongful act. (2) done intentionally, (3) which necessarily causes
injury. and (4) is done without just cause or excuse." Jercich, at
1209 citing In re Bamer, 131 F.3d 788, 791 (9`h Cir. 1997). Applying
these elements to its facts. the Jercich court found that the
employer's actions in not paying Jercich his wages when he had a clear
ability to do so was sufficient to show the injury inflicted upon
Jercich was malicious under ง 523(a)(6).
The element of a wrongful act is clearly met in this case - Defendant
has both been convicted criminally and found civilly liable for his
The conviction under Penal Code ง 422.6 also necessarily includes that
Defendant's acts were committed intentionally. M.S., 10 Cal.4th at
712-713. 42 Cal.Rptr.2d at 363 (for a conviction under section 422.6,
"one must specifically intend. by means of threats of violence to
another person, to invade interests protected by constitutional or
statutory authority")(emphasis added). In
fact, Defendant admitted to the Sheriff's Deputies that he intended to
cause paranoia and fear and that he was doing so. and his postings on
the Internet gloated about creating just such effects.' Furthermore,
the state civil court found that these very Plaintiffs were entitled
to summary judgment on identical facts and legal issues to those found
in the criminal trial. Thus. the state court's summary adjudication
order, by that implication, accepts the truth of Plaintiffs'
(1) Defendant violated Civil Code ง 52.1. i.e.. that "by his
threats, intimidation and coercion, and threats of violence, [he has]
interfered with Plaintiffs' peaceable exercise and enjoyment of their
constitutional right to their religion in violation of California
Civil Code ง 52.1." Abelson Dec.. Ex. L at 4'18.
(2) Defendant damaged these very Plaintiffs, indeed. they had
"suffered, and will continue to suffer, great anxiety, worry. mental
and emotional distress and other incidents of damage." Id., Ex. L at
(3) In engaging in his actions against Plaintiffs that led to that
damage, "Defendant has acted willfully, wantonly, maliciously and
oppressively and with conscious disregard for the rights and interests
of Plaintiffs." Id., Ex. L at 20 (emphasis added).
That injury was caused to these individual Plaintiffs is also amply
evidenced in their criminal trial testimony that constituted the
factual underpinning for the civil judgment. Focusing only on the
specific injury to these Plaintiffs, Defendant's 40 days of threats,
intimidation, oppression, and interference induced in Mr. Roden
concern that a missile might be launched or a bomb detonated against
the Church where he worked, resulting in fear for his own safety and
that of his wife and staff. as well as extensive interference with the
performance of his job because of draconian measures that he had to
take to protect his staff by closing down parts of the chapel,
re-routing stall' long distances in 112-degree heat, re-routing or
delaying buses, and so on. Mr. Wagoner was scared for his own
well-being and that of his fellow staff: he felt intimidated and
6 Notably, although the BAP has stated that "[m]alice under ง
523(a)(6) does not require a showing of biblical malice. i.e.,
personal hatred. spite. or ill-will," In re Thiara, 285 B.R. 420. 434
(9th Cir.BAP 2002). in the facts of this case, Defendant's malice even
rises to that level.
threatened. Ms. Dezotell was severely disrupted in the performance of
her normal activities, she elt intimidated. threatened, scared, and
vulnerable. As the state civil court found in the hearing on e summary
Since all the plaintiffs herein were named as victims in the criminal
count, defendant was convicted of in the jury's verdict was the
finding of truth as to all material elements to be proved based on
facts in evidence presented. The defendant has presented no authority
or facts which requires the Court to assume that the jury may have
found some but not all of the alleged victims to have been victims.
o Belson Dec.. Ex. M. Tr. of Aug. 26, 2002, at 9:20-10:2. See also, In
re Diamond, 285 F.3d at :28 (issues necessarily implicated in a state
court judgment provide basis for application of ollateral estoppel to
a section 523(a)(6) claim).
Finally. Defendant's conviction, as well as the civil judgment against
him. necessarily ncludes the finding that there was not just cause or
excuse, for had Defendant presented a just ause or excuse, it would
have constituted a defense to the crime or to the civil claim.
Moreover. -ven where someone considers he has a legitimate protest
about something, it does not provide just ause or excuse where the
person's conduct "demonstrates a specific intent to injure . . . over
and bove otherwise legitimate protest." In re Sicroff (Jett v.
Sicroff). 401 F.3d 1101. 1107 (9th Cir. 005), cert. denied. 125 S.Ct.
2964 (June 27, 2005) (finding that even though graduate student had I
egitimate reason to protest closing of department, he did not have
just cause or excuse for oeliberately libeling a professor.)
Thus. Plaintiffs have shown that Defendant's conduct was malicious and
was maliciously ntended to cause injury to them.
3. The Cases Cited by the Court on March 10 Support Plaintiffs'
On March 10, the Court cited to Jercich in questioning whether the
standard for section 23(a)(6) has been met here. Plaintiffs have
demonstrated above that it has. The Court also cited o In re Allan
Elias. 302 B.R. 900 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2003), for the proposition that a
criminal onviction of itself may not necessarily meet the requirements
of section 523(a)(6). While that
ay be correct. that case actually supports Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment. In Allan lias, the plaintiff sued the Debtor for
injuries he sustained as a result of cyanide poisoning he
ontracted from being instructed by his employer to enter a tank car
and remove sludge containing he poison. Plaintiff sued for damages and
won on a default judgment. Id. at 903-904.
The defendant employer was also prosecuted and found guilty for his
conduct in connection 'th the plaintiff's injuries for violating a
federal statute dealing with solid waste disposal. hereafter, the
defendant filed for bankruptcy and plaintiff brought an adversary
complaint seeking o have his state court judgment excepted from the
discharge under ง 523(a)(6). Id. at 904-906.
Like here, the plaintiff brought a summary judgment arguing that his
claim was excepted cased upon the conviction entered in the federal
criminal proceeding and the judgment in the state ourt proceeding. The
bankruptcy court first applied federal issue preclusion law to the
criminal onviction and found that, while it established that the
defendant "knowingly and intentionally subjected Plaintiff to a
dangerous situation". it did "not necessarily establish that Defendant
owingly and intentionally injured Plaintiff." Id. at 908. The court
stated that "no element of the offense Defendant was convicted of
required the jury to find that Defendant subjectively intended o harm
Plaintiff." Id. at 909-910.
However, the state court civil judgment was a different matter. The
Allan Elias court pplied Idaho state issue preclusion law and found
"without hesitation" that the state court default udgment met the
523(a)(6) standards. Since this was a default judgment, the
allegations of the omplaint were taken as true under Idaho law. Id. at
911-912. Thus, "a fair reading" of the udgment in that context and
"though employing somewhat different language preclusively
-stablishe[d] that the allegations of the complaint are true, and that
Defendant acted with a subjective intent to harm." Id. at 912-913. On
that basis, plaintiff's summary judgment motion as granted.
Here, Defendant was convicted of violating Plaintiffs' civil and
Constitutional rights under criminal statute that required a finding
that the Defendant acted willfully. That conviction was ollowed by an
adjudication of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, containing
findings that he facts and law on which the civil claim was based were
identical to those in the criminal case
d holding that Plaintiffs' factual contentions were uncontroverted.
Thus. the issue in Allan Elias ith respect to the criminal statute is
4. An Intention to Invade Civil Rights Comports with the
Requirements of ง 523(a)(6)
The Court also raised the question of whether an injury to civil
rights falls within the ambit of section 523(a)(6). It is clear that
523(a)(6) protects intangible rights and interests. In re Stulliti.
167 B.R. 29 (S.D.N.Y. 1994): see Craycraft v. Adams (In re Adams), 21
B.R. 301, 9 B.C.D. 318. 319 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1982) (wife's right to
consortium was a personal right under state law, and default judgment
for loss of consortium was nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(6));
accord, Mazurcz / v. O'Neil. 268 B.R. 1, 5 (Bankr.D.Mass.2001) (civil
damage judgment for illegal tape recording of communications; injury
under ง 523(a)(6) not limited to bodily injury); In re McGuffey, 145
B.R. 582, 592 (Bankr.N.D.I11.1992) (discrimination judgment for actual
and punitive damages; ง 523(a)(6) imposes no requirement of bodily
injury or physical abuse): In re Erickson. 89 B.R. 850, 852 (D. Idaho
1988) ("injuries within the meaning of section 523(a)(6) are not
confined to physical damage or destruction. It also encompasses
injuries to intangible personal or property rights."); see also,
Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279.282 n. 2, 111 S.Ct. 654, 657 (1991)
("Arguably fraud judgments in cases in which the defendant did not
obtain money, property, or services from the plaintiffs and those
judgments that include punitive damages awards are more appropriately
governed by ง 523(a)(6).'')
For instance, in In re Rosenberger, 208 B.R. 445. 447
(Bankr.C.D.I11.1997) the debtor was convicted for having sexual
relations with a 17-year old student. The student subsequently sued
and obtained a judgment against him. The debtor filed for bankruptcy
and the student filed a ง 523(a)(6) adversary complaint and moved for
summary judgment based upon the criminal conviction and state court
judgment. The debtor attempted to argue that since there was no
physical injury, the creditor failed to meet the willful and malicious
requirement under ง 523(a)(6). In rejecting this argument, the court
There is no question that the Debtor committed a wrongful act when he
had sexual relations with the Plaintiff. Indeed, his actions
constituted a felony under Illinois law. See 720 II.CS 5/12-16(f). The
Defendant. however. argues that his actions were not malicious because
they did not result in physical injury to the Plaintiff. However, an
injury under ง 523(a)(6) is not limited to bodily injury or physical
abuse. In re Lubanski, 186 B.R. 160, 167
(Bankr.D.Mass.1995) (eavesdropping); In re Caldwell, 60 B.R. 214. 217
(Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1986) (malicious prosecution); In re AMcGuf ey, 145
B.R. 582. 592 (Bankr.N.D.I11.1992) (civil rights and fair housing); In
re Moore, 1 B.R. 52 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1979) (racial discrimination). The
harm suffered by the Plaintiff is no less real merely because she did
not sustain physical injury. See, In re Miera, 926 F.2d 741 (8th
Cir.1991) (Debtor willfully and maliciously injured an employee by
kissing the employee against his will)."
Rosenberger. 208 B.R. at 447.
Here, the injury sustained by the Plaintiffs was Defendant's creating
threats to them by his intimidation, oppression, and interference with
their activities, and his threatening postings, and thereby
interfering with their Constitutional and civil rights to freely
practice their religion. As is made clear by the cases cited above,
this is an intangible personal right, the deprivation of which meets
the "injury" requirement under ง 523(a)(6).
5. The Statutory Damages Award Is Nondischargeable Under ง
Numerous cases support the conclusion that, as long as the
requirements of section 523(a)(6) have been met, the damages that flow
from that willful and malicious injury are nondischargeable, even
where they are statutory damages or attorneys' fees. In Cohen v. de la
Cruz, 523 U.S. 213. 220, 118 S.Ct. 1212, 1217 (1998), the Supreme
Court discussed several sections of 523, including 523(a)(6) and then
None of these use "debt for" in the restitutionary sense of "liability
on a claim to obtain": it makes little sense to speak of "liability on
a claim to obtain willful and malicious injury" or "liability on a
claim to obtain fraud or defalcation." Instead, "debt for" is used
throughout to mean "debt as a result of," "debt with respect to,"
"debt by reason of," and the like, see American Heritage Dictionary
709 (3d ed.1992); Black's Law Dictionary 644 (6th ed.1990), connoting
broadly any liability arising from the specified object, see
[Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v Davenport, 495 U.S. 552. 563,
110 S.Ct. 2126, 2133] (characterizing ง 523(a)(7), which excepts from
discharge certain debts "for a fine. penalty, or forfeiture" as
encompassing "debts arising from a `fine, penalty, or forfeiture'").
Because each use of "debt for" in ง 523(a) serves the identical
function of introducing a category of nondischargeable debt, the
presumption that equivalent words have equivalent meaning when
repeated in the same statute . . . has particular resonance here.
The court concluded that if a claim fell within the section 523
exception from discharge. "any debt" arising therefrom is excepted f r
o m discharge. Id. at 2 1 8 , 1 18 S.Ct. at 1216. See, In re Karpinsky
(DirecTV v. Karpinsky), 328 B.R. 516, 528-529 (E.D. Mich.
2005)(federal statutory awards for Debtor's larceny of satellite
signals ruled nondischargeable): In re Hamaina (Masters v. Han:am).
182 B.R. 757, 758-759 (Bankr. D.Kan. 1995)(statutory double and treble
damages awards ruled nondischargeable); see, In re Marc (Pollock v.
Marx). 171 B.R. 218, 223 (N.D. Texas 1994)(holding punitive damages
nondischargeable and stating that "most courts now hold that all
debts, including statutory or punitive damages and legal fees. which
'flow from the debtor's willful and malicious conduct' are
nondischargeable.")(emphasis in original).
Plaintiffs' statutory damages and attorneys' fee awards. and the
injunction against Defendant, are likewise nondischargeable.
Plaintiff is entitled to an order declaring that the above state court
judgment. both the monetary and non-monetary portion. including all
injunctive relief, is nondischargeable under Bkrtcy.C. ง 523(a)(6).
DATED: June 12, 2006 COOK, PERKISS & LEW, P.L.C.
> Thanks to Abelson screwing up, I now have a copy of the injunction.
> Oddly it was *not* signed by Barry A. Reimer, but by Robert A.
> Trujillo, a private lawyer acting as a pro tem judge.
> I also saw the signed judgment for the first time and it wasn't signed
> by Reimer either! His name had been scratched out and Robert A.
> Trujillo's printed in then signed.
Are you sure Trujillo was truly authorized to take any action in your
case? There must be a trail of who requested his inclusion and who let
Surely random lawyers, even ones that act as part-time judges, cannot
spit out decrees on their own. The state of California must require
some record keeping, even for so corrupt a county as Riverside.
> This is really weird. I never had any notice that the case had been
> farmed out to a lawyer (pro tem) for signing and entry of judgment.
> The Riverside courts are even stranger than I thought if they permit
>Keith Henson wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:30:46 GMT, hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson)
>> Thanks to Abelson screwing up, I now have a copy of the injunction.
>> Oddly it was *not* signed by Barry A. Reimer, but by Robert A.
>> Trujillo, a private lawyer acting as a pro tem judge.
>> I also saw the signed judgment for the first time and it wasn't signed
>> by Reimer either! His name had been scratched out and Robert A.
>> Trujillo's printed in then signed.
>Are you sure Trujillo was truly authorized to take any action in your
>case? There must be a trail of who requested his inclusion and who let
>Surely random lawyers, even ones that act as part-time judges, cannot
>spit out decrees on their own. The state of California must require
>some record keeping, even for so corrupt a county as Riverside.
The problem is that I can't get any court (except perhaps the
bankruptcy court) to take notice. Being a fugitive disentitles you
from being able to appeal in the Riverside courts.
Of course being dead has the same effect . . . .
Here is a draft version of my reply due to be filed on Sept. 12.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
In re:KEITH HENSON,DebtorHILLARY DEZOTELL, KEN HODEN, and BRUCE
WAGONER, Plaintiffs, vs.
H. KEITH HENSON Defendant. ))))))))))))))))) CASE
NO.: 98-51326 ASW-7ADV.NO.035136REPLY TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. § 56 AND BKRTCY.C. § 7056Time: TO BE SETDate: TO
BE SETCourtroom: 3099Judge: Arthur S. Weissbrodt(SERVED BY EMAIL AND
Plaintiffs ask that their civil judgment be declared non
dischargeable and that an injunction against the defendant and other
people be declared non dischargeable.
There seem to be no provisions of law, and none were provided
in the points and authorities, for bankruptcy courts to make an
injunction non dischargeable.
The court commented on this in the March 10, 2006 hearing:
I . . . I'm not aware of any statutory support for excepting a
permanent injunction from discharge.
Is there any law providing that? I'm not aware of that.
Ordinarily this would be enough of a response to this part of
the motion. However since the plaintiffs raised the issue, it seems
incumbent on the defendant to examine how the injunction came about.
A copy of the injunction entered October 8, 2002 is Exhibit J
attached to Elliot Abelson's declaration accompanying the plaintiff's
motion. This was the first time defendant had seen the injunction;
and to his surprise, Barry A. Reimer, the Riverside court commissioner
who sat as judge in the Dezotel et al case, did not sign it. Robert
A. Trujillo, a lawyer acting as a pro tem judge, signed the
injunction. Even more surprising is Exhibit I, the judgment entered
October 7, where Mr. Reimer name is scratched out and Mr. Trujillo's
is written in. Defendant has no access to the court files, but does
not remember being notified of a change in the judge in his case.
There may be an innocent explanation for the change and lack of
notice, but considering that defendant's lawyer, Karan Novorr, was
convinced that Mr. Reimer had been corrupted (by his demeanor when he
read the summary judgment he had clearly not written it), it is also
possible the explanation is not innocent at all. Novorr also does not
remember a change of judge in the case.
This "substitution" should be considered in the light of
paragraph 34 of Jesse Prince's declaration of June 1999, attached
34. Another unit was also organized within CSI. This unit was
MFTC for Mission Find The Crimes. The MFTC's unit was literally what
title implies. MFTC members worked full time investigating any judge
sitting on the Wollersheim case, the judges' family and friends; the
for Wollersheim; their family and friends; any witnesses that the
Wollersheim attorneys might call at trial; and, their families and
The job of MFTC unit was to find any crimes, unethical behavior or
embarrassing information that might be used to Scientology's
Wollersheim's attorneys, Charlie O'Rielly and Lita Schlosser were
on an almost constant basis.
No matter what one thinks about the civil case or the
underlying criminal case, the injunction the plaintiffs are asking the
court to make non dischargeable exceeded the authority of the court in
the Dezotell case to grant. The civil case was filed as a limited
case, one reason it could be tried without a regular judge. The
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 580(b)(2) absolutely
restricts the authority of the courts in a limited case: "They may
not grant a permanent injunction."
Granting an injunction the court was not authorized to grant
is part of a larger pattern displayed by Riverside County officials
starting with the concealed indictment (Secor letter, Exhibit B),
continuing through the manipulation of judges assigned to the criminal
trail, concealing the charge defendant was convicted on from October
2000 to eve of trial in April of 2001, motions in limine that
precluded the defendant from pointing out that Section (c ) of the law
under which he was convicted provides an exception for First Amendment
activities such as picketing. Indeed, defendant was gagged at trial
to the point that his lawyer told him that he would be jailed for
contempt if he answered in response to a prosecution question that he
had been picketing, protesting the deaths of Ashlee Shaner and Stacy
Other irregularities included defendant's lawyer's not being
permitted to see the jury questionnaires, missing parts of the trial
record "sealed" with no notice, statements from the defendant's parole
officer (Gerry Davis) that his recommendation for maximum jail time
and no bond on appeal had been forced on him as a political decision
by high county officials, and the refusal of the appeal judge to
recognize that the injunction granted by the trial judges in the
appeal of Dezotell case was not authorized (to name a few).
The appeal was denied on the legal fiction that the appeal was
a new case and that a fugitive cannot file a new case on the basis of
fugitive disentitlement. It seems in Riverside County defendant could
not even draw the attention of the review court to an unauthorized
action by a lower court. (Exhibit D is defendant's attempt to appeal
Which brings up the issue of why the defendant was a fugitive.
Due only to defendant's criminal case file's being left open
on a desk, one of defendant's lawyers, Graham Berry, got a brief look
at two letters. One of the letters described a meeting between
Scientology's attorney, Alan Oberstein, and Grover Trask the day after
defendant's announcement he was going to picket "Gold base."
The other letter was dated Aug. 16, 2000. In it Scientology
attorney, Gerald Feffer (of Williams and Connally, Washington, D.C.)
writes to Deputy D.A. Kevin Ruddy. "In his letter, Feffer refers to
the prior meeting between them and sets forth factual and legal
arguments that Henson should be arrested for extortion." (This
timeline has previously been filed as Exhibit A to the defendant's
filing dated Aug. 23, 2005.)
At the point defendant became a fugitive, defendant had seen
that the same powerful law firm that defended former President Clinton
in his impeachment trial influenced his arrest and prosecution and
that defendant's prosecution had started before the first time
defendant picketed Gold base in 2000. Defendant had been subjected to
an attempt to frame him for failure to appear--which only failed
because Scientology lawyers misread a court filing in Hurtado and
filed a docket page of the unknown case in this court on Sept 13,
Defendant's attempt to report a serious felony, that of filing false
papers in court, was rebuffed (Secor letter, Exhibit B), the court
record was manipulated to add a charge held from defendant's knowledge
from October 2000 to April 2001, the judges were intimidated or
recused until one who knew former Mafia lawyer Elliot Abelson
(admitted in front of witnesses in the courtroom right after the close
of trial) could be obtained, and defendant was gagged by motions in
limine in his criminal trail and so forbidden to present a clear First
Amendment defense based on Section C of 422.6 or even to refute false
inflammatory testimony such as that given under oath by Ken Hoden
about Helen Burk's baby.
Finally, defendant's parole officer, Gerry Davis, made it clear that
the sentence-- indeed, as the record shows, the entire
prosecution--was political and that what he wrote in his sentencing
report was not his work but had been dictated from above.
Defendant is well aware that political prisoners do not fare
well in the custody of their enemies. And while Riverside County per
se might not be an enemy of the defendant, it clearly does the biding
of the cult, which has declared itself, in court and under oath, to be
an enemy of the defendant. (Frank Oliver declaration, previously
In regard to the arguments the defendant injured the
plaintiffs in some way, it was the defendant's intent to disrupt their
activities within the limits of First Amendment activities-which have
been delimited in the context of abortion protests.
Defendant never blocked an entrance to a scientology's "Gold
base"; indeed one person would be hard pressed to block 7 or 8 gates
separated by 100 yards or more. Accusations of "glaring" at them or
yelling are simply ridiculous given the distances involved, seldom
less than 25 yards, and the wind. Defendant had to limit signs to 3
or 4 lines and print them with 3 inch tall letters for the signs to be
readable. During the entire time defendant picketed, he had only one
verbal interaction over the fence, and that was initiated from inside.
I have become so used to the west underpass not being used that I was
even looking at the stairs which go up the hill to the north of the
as I walked by. An older, grey haired woman called out to me. And
looked that direction she said I should *not* be there. It *was* kind
hot by that time, but I don't think she was concerned about my health.
She just insisted over and over like a broken record that I should not
there and then went stomping up the stairs.
dated July 19, 2000)
The below material is from "blownforgood," a poster on "operation
clambake." The identity known as "blownforgood" is considered
reputable, and his recollections accord closely with defendant's and
defendant's public posting at the time defendant was picketing "Gold
When the Keith Hensons of the world show up at the Gold Base, the
Security force become the busiest ever. When he did one of his last
"walk arounds" on the Int Base, Highway 79, he really caused a stir.
A few people actually got burned on that one. Mike Sutter was the Dir
Internal Security RTC. He had just arrived back from a few years on
the RPF .
(Background Story Explanation) Mark Yager and Bitty Miscavige were
both under watch. Mark had admitted to wanting to kill Dave Miscavige
and Bitty had just been fucking one of the key execs at FSO (Don
Jason). Mike Sutter was in RTC and assigned to watch these two while
they were getting their handlings at the Int Base.
Well Bitty used her special mind bending skills and caused Mark Yager
to go psychotic. So for good measure, Bitty & her husband Ronnie
Miscavige were whisked off into Virginia never to be heard of again.
They are now doing great and since leaving the Int Base have done
extremely well for themselves.
Mark Yager and Mike Sutter were assigned to the RPF. Mark because Dave
hated him anyway and they had been childhood rivals for decades. Dave
had Marty Rathburn read all of Mark Yager's Sec Check KR's to the
entire Int Base at a Briefing and anyone who had been Mark Yager's
friend was also RPF'd for good measure. Mike Sutter was RPF'd, because
he allowed Bitty to make Mark Yager even more crazy than he was
(Back to Main Story) Four years later - Mike Sutter has just arrived
at the Int Base and is now in charge of Security in RTC.
Enter Keith Henson. Somehow Mike and the Gold Security crew knew Keith
was coming before he did. I think they had plants in Keith's circle.
So Mike Sutter orders that NO ONE IS TO BE OUTSIDE WHILE KEITH IS ON
THE HIGHWAY. This means no one. PERIOD. So, a few outside PI's are
hired and they are supposed to deal with Keith when he arrives. (Don't
let any Int Base staff be completely bragged up mentally by Keith
Spewing Xenu stories, but the PI's will be fine.)
So this goes on for days, Keith shows up and no one can go anywhere
because they might see a sign that says Xenu. 99% of the Int Base
staff have never even heard the word Xenu much less have any clue what
it means or any of the story. So if you were on the other side of the
Int Base getting a pen from supplies and Keith showed up - you had to
stay there in Supplies for the rest of the day until he left.
If you were eating and he showed up, you had to stay in the dining
room for the rest of the day. It was crazy. While Keith was "visiting"
not one thing got done. You could nto even look out a window, open a
door. The security force told people that the SP's on the highway
would be taking pictures, and that if any Int Base staff were
photographed, they would be RPF'd instantly. This kept pretty much
everybody inside with no problem. Sitting around doing nothing is a
far better fate than the RPF.
Well, Dave Miscavige showed back up and heard about all of this and
could not believe that this had been happening. He ordered Mike Sutter
to be kicked out of RTC and posted in CMO INT.
He ordered that Mike Rinder sort this out and if he didn't he would be
RPF'd. Mike Rinder just had the crew moved around in buses and
otherwise the PI's would be all around Keith to cover any Xenu signs
that might be showing. The crew were shuttled around the property in
the huge passenger buses and no one could go anywhere unless inside
the buses. Staying inside was still in force but Dave was told that no
one was stopped from being on post. What Dave is told and what
actually happens are rarely the same thing. Dave Miscavige is lied to
95% of the time by anyone below him. He hears what people think he
wants to hear. The truth is rarely in that category.
(Mike Sutter story continued) weeks later - Mike Sutter is now in CMO
INT. Mike Sutter and Tom DeVoct screw up on some project. Dave
Miscavige orders both of them to work in the Gold Manufacturing
Division doing menial tasks. After a few days of doing this, Mike
Sutter decides to take some "initiative" and go back up to CMO Int and
get some real work done. Tom DeVoct says that he is going to stay in
Gold Manufacturing and just keep doing nothing and laying low. Dave
finds out the Mike Sutter disobeyed his order and went back to CMO
Int. Mike Sutter is then posted in Gold Manufacturing on the lowest
post in the entire division (CD sleeve stuffer) and Tom is ordered
back up to CMO Int to return to post.
So the moral of the story is that Mike Sutter knows how to piss off
Dave really good. [Int base is the same as "Gold base."]
From an earlier posting by "blownforgood."
I do think that the Stacy thing was an accident. She was a nobody with
that posed no threat whatsoever. There were about 3-4 that went to the
PAC RPF over that flap. The cover was left open, she never opened it.
How would the squirrel have gotten in if it was not already left open.
The friggin' squirrel was stuck down there as it was all oily in
there. She went it to get the squirrel, slipped and poof. Becket Wells
eventually went to the RPF for leaving the cover open. Some MAA kid in
CMO Gold was RPF'd because she had wanted to go to LA and visit here
family and was not handled. If she had gone to see her family, she
would not have been there that Sunday morning. It was a bad scene.
Hoden got busted because he never got the Hwy closed down. The noise
from the Hwy was really bugging DM and has been for years. Hoden was
supposed to get it closed down and failed. That is Why Hoden was
nuked, that is why Steve Willet was nuked. Muriel also bit it on that
but I think she got Nuken for trying to bribe a police officer to let
Ron Miscavige go instead of arresting him on the Hwy. Bad move on her
Hoden and about 7 others were sent to the PAC ranch to get it ready
for a Narconon Center. They failed miserably and the whole operation
was closed down. They were all either offloaded or RPF'd.
As far as 2000 pickets. The crew were basically told to lay low when
you first started coming around. Then As they realized that that is
what you supposedly wanted, it was like, don't pay any attention to
him and he will go away. I must say though there were times when
people did not eat for hours because you guys were wither going to
come or are scheduled to come.
It was know at least 30 minutes before you would arrive any time you
did and they had PI's and scanners going so they were all over your
whereabouts throughout all of LA and at INT. Anyway, The other thing
is that after the 2000 pickets, DM would not stay at the Base, as it
was unsafe and unsecure. If the pickets happened when he was there,
there was major shit to pay. There was one period when you were there
during an event and DM had to be there and it was just really screwed
up as there was nothing he could do and instead of drive down on his
bike, they would take the car and schedule when to go across. It was a
If you guys went to go eat lunch it was like whisk everybody to MCI
(dining hall) and then whisk everybody back to their work areas before
you came back. I remember one time that the crew all went down to MCI
and then you showed back up so there were people waiting around in MCI
for hours before they could leave. Literally you had like 300 people
helping clean down there and doing dishes so they would nto be
unproductive while waiting for the picketers to bail. In the end the
crew were told that you had been arrested and were never coming back.
There you go.
The point of this material (and defendant is acutely aware that it is
not in the form of a signed declaration) is that indeed people such as
the plaintiffs were indeed fearful, but the evidence is that they
feared the cult's hierarchy rather than the defendant.
For background, I referred the court to previous replies to this
motion and the exhibits incorporated here by reference, particularly
the material about Ken Hoden.
Finally, defendant captured this on-line conversation between
a person who was just an observer and a former scientology member of
the Sea Org. The names have been changed to protect the parties, but
this conversation conveys the reality of Scientology litigation better
than the defendant anything the defendant has written.
<Former Sea Org member> lawsuits with CofS are not productive
<Former Sea Org member> counterproductive, in fact
<Outsider> they seem to have fairly competent lawyers from what I've
seen... if nothing else they are good at filling paperwork
<Outsider> nice to know XXXX is doing well at least
<Former Sea Org member> they are good at abusing the legal system
<Former Sea Org member> which is founded upon the notion that both
parties are looking for a fair resolution of their dispute
<Former Sea Org member> CofS confounds this
<Former Sea Org member> by having a purpose of using legal system
purely for harassement and destruction, which is NOT it's purpose
<Outsider> at least, not it's orginally intended purpose, I have to
question it's purpose these days
<Former Sea Org member> Judges who have not experienced their shit
before are totally unprepared for all the time-wasting crap designed
purely to drive up the expense for their opponent until they cry
"Uncle" or are bankrupt and cannot continue
<Former Sea Org member> well, I have learned alot about the legal
system from Groklaw.Net
<Outsider> Yeah I've seen a lot of cases where the person/company/org
with the most money wins
<Former Sea Org member> and another purely abusive set of
Lawsuits..... from The SCO Group
<Outsider> either by settlement or appealing to death
<Former Sea Org member> who appear to have studied every tactic used
by C of S
Since I am not providing a declaration to accompany this reply, any
statements of facts in the contents of this reply are true to the best
of my knowledge and are made under penalty of perjury under the laws
of the United States.
H. Keith Henson, pro se
Dated September 12, 2006
>You've got to make it better organized and clearly delineate how the
>various parts relate to your main argument. Also you probably should
>attach definitions and explanations of who some of the characters are
>which your judge won't recognize.
Good points, though this judge has had 8 years of experience with the
cult, including a lot more than he wanted with Rosen.
I think trimming down BFG's work will have to be done, but I will put
in a pointer to the web if he wants to read the whole thing.
Keith Henson wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 23:04:51 -0400, Ed <met...@pronetisp.net> wrote:
> >You've got to make it better organized and clearly delineate how the
> >various parts relate to your main argument. Also you probably should
> >attach definitions and explanations of who some of the characters are
> >which your judge won't recognize.
> Good points, though this judge has had 8 years of experience with the
> cult, including a lot more than he wanted with Rosen.
Sure, but remember as a courtesy to him or anyone else who
reads it that you have to identify who various people are, rather than
expect him to remember names. Lack of care and attention to detail in
this gives an opening to an excuse to disrespect you.
it's especially important for the judge to keep
track of whom bitty is fucking now.
| Good points, though this judge has had 8 years of experience with the
| cult, including a lot more than he wanted with Rosen.
| I think trimming down BFG's work will have to be done, but I will put
| in a pointer to the web if he wants to read the whole thing.
why are the post and log excerpt included at all?
it's notoriously easy to 'counterfeit' these things
and at *best* they are hearsay. can you get
notarized affidavits from bfg or 'former sea org
member'? otherwise this stuff only serves to make
you look foolish for thinking it is legal evidence
of something. imho. ianal, but i watch judge judy.
--------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
time flies like an arrow. fruit flies like a banana. -gm